Talk:Azer
Shield Since the why question was brought up (as "it makes no difference to gameplay"), I placed information about this inventory item for in parallel to similar notes about creature weapons being present but never actually used (concerning creatures that cannot be disarmed that use a normal melee weapon). I noticed that the comment wasn't deleted but moved to an undisplayed parenthetical next to AC (in case someone tries to account for the shield later). In that circumstance I would find noting an unusable shield to be more significant at preventing uninformed editing than noting a creature weapon which the AI doesn't support use of. WhiZard (talk) 02:29, July 25, 2012 (UTC) * The notes about creature weapons are not intended to prevent "uninformed editing". There are several ways in which those creature weapons could become significant. A DM can tell a creature to not use its melee weapon. Rust monsters can cause a non-disarmable creature to lose its weapon. (Admittedly, rust monsters are not standard creatures, but toss in whatever custom scripting you want. Maybe even a custom AI.) A module builder might want to customize a creature by removing its weapon, but not take the time to look at natural weapons. These are all customizations, so not mentioned in the main creature info, but at the same time they fall back on something standard provided by BioWare. Hence the mention in the notes. (While a builder could add shield proficiency to azers, that is an addition, not a falling back. Once you start adding things, the sky's the limit and documenting all possibilities is a hopelessly huge task.) --The Krit (talk) 20:57, July 26, 2012 (UTC) :* And a custom baseitems.2da can cause the shield to suddenly be equipped (by removing the feat pre-req); no change to the blueprint there. Also a custom AI can add the shield proficiency item property, in a general inventory sweep (to ensure all items the creature has are usable). As far as customizations go, I figure consistency in description is the best route, rather than second guessing what a builder may or may not change. WhiZard (talk) 21:06, July 26, 2012 (UTC) ::* True, but I have to wonder: are these modifications that you have actually seen in use somewhere, or is this merely an exercise in how flexible the game is? (DM possession is rather common in games with DMs, and rust monsters are available in every CEP module. I think I have seen instances of creatures customized to merely lack their weapons, but I might be thinking of a different game, so we can toss that argument if you find it so unlikely.) --The Krit (talk) 02:27, July 28, 2012 (UTC) :::* Back in the old forums, I was requested to script in making items equippable. As for .2da change I don't recall a server claiming removal for shield, but I have heard of armor proficiency changes, one of which made the chain shirt a light armor. This would affect the female frost giant, allowing her to equip her chain shirt. As for DM possession, they can already spawn any item they want and use it (even switching hides and creature weapons). As for rust monster, I remember having issues a long time ago with that creature (in how it would destroy the equipped melee weapon when damaged long distance by a spell, but would not destroy a ranged weapon used in melee distance) and I got several replies that many servers had modified this creature because of this problem. The CEP might have changed it since then, but I gave up on the CEP a while back; the point is CEP rust monster blueprint might not serve as the best baseline. (I also don't see any notes in ranged weapon stating immunity to destruction when attack a rust monster, so why remove information based on something not even noteworthy enough to add). Also, I have heard rumors of NWNX looking into isolating the ForceEquip command to cause equipping without an action. If this works in any way like polymorph equipping, then proficiencies will be ignored. I know that a lot of servers are quite eager for this functionality. WhiZard (talk) 03:44, July 28, 2012 (UTC) ::::* So people do add the proficiencies via scripting instead of editing blueprints? Bad design to do some work each time a creature is spawned instead of doing it once, but if it is done, then it is done. (And you did an inventory sweep instead of simply giving all creatures all proficiencies?) Changing the proficiency for an item is a far cry from removing the need for a proficiency, so I do not accept that argument. I already stated that once you start adding things, the sky's the limit, which discounts your argument about DM possession. (This is about falling back on what BioWare provided, not about what builders and DMs can add to creatures.) As for the rust monster, you apparently agree that custom scripting sometimes removes weapons. (You stated "many servers had modified this creature", which implies that they do still use it. Modified from the CEP scripts, but still going around rusting stuff.) I said you could toss in whatever custom scripting you want; I was not restricting this to the rust monster, much less the rather bad CEP implementation of the rust monster. (One of these days I should package up my rust monster AI. The CEP version does nuttier things than what you mentioned.) Your NWNX information is mere rumor and speculation. So all we are left with is that someone asked for a custom AI that would give shield proficiency to all creatures with shields. --The Krit (talk) 19:52, July 30, 2012 (UTC)